<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Good evening:</p><div><br></div><div>Please find attached and below my comments and suggestions for CWG's replies to the recent ICG questions.</div><div><br></div><div>I trust that these may be taken largely into account. </div><div><br></div><div>With many thanks and regards</div><div><br></div><div>Christopher Wilkinson</div><div><br></div><div>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Draft contribution to the CWG replies
to the ICG questions – Christopher Wilkinson<br><br><b>RZM</b></p>
<ol>
<li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">The CWG should not confirm that
the Verisign/ICANN proposal is acceptable. It is not.<br>Even if the
current arrangement is maintained during the transition, it should
not be considered as a definitive or permanent solution. Data and
code used in and arising from the testing during the '3-month
parallel operation' should accrue to ICANN.<br><br>The
Verisign/ICANN proposal contains the following features:<br><br>(a)
the Cooperative Agreement between NTIA and Verisign will continue
(p.7) and <br><br>(b) changes in the RZA mechanism should be
identified in advance of the transition and only by mutual agreement
of all parties (p. 5). (Including Verisign).<br><br>Thus, on this
basis, Verisign's position as RZM would be grandfathered and
entrenched, the IANA transition notwithstanding.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">It is rather inconsistent that CWG
has discussed the IANA transition at great length and complexity,
whilst the RZM transition has been hardly discussed atall. Whereas
the RZM transition is as important as the IANA transition, both
technically and politically.<br></p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Further to question 1), above, it
would appear that the CWG statement quoted at the end of the first
paragraph that “ ... any amendment to the roles of PTI and the RZM
... will require approval of the ICANN board ...” is not correct,
or at least not complete. Nor is the draft reply that “ ... such
proposals should be subject to wide community consultation”.
Whereas, according to the Verisign/ICANN proposal, any changes to
RZA would notably require the agreement of Verisign, “in advance
of the IANA stewardship transition”. <br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">No comment (see reply from the
ccTLD communities).<br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">No comment (see reply from the
ccTLD communities).<br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">IANA Function Review (IFR) teams:
with reference to the composition of the ccTLD representation, see
reply from the ccTLD communities.)<br><br>However, it
is more important that the IFRs include a balanced quota of
technically qualified independent members. Otherwise, the outcome of
IFRs could become biassed by small numbers of participating
Registries. This is particularly relevant in relation to question 7)
Compliance with IFR.<br><br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; ">Coordination:
A higher degree of coordination among the three communities might
have been advantageous. ICG should ensure that a single IANA
function is maintained for the benefit of all communities and
stakeholders concerned. This is particularly important for
non-commercial stakeholders including users' interests and for
governments.<br><br>The costs of basic oversight are not negligible.
Duplicating or even triplicating them efficiently would not be
possible for most non-commercial stakeholders.<br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; ">See 5)
above.<br><br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; ">Good
question. The proposed ICG amendment appears acceptable.<br><br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; ">The ICANN
Board should remain responsible for the IANA functions because the
IANA/PTI budget and staff will remain part of ICANN, albeit
'ring-fenced'. Furthermore, IANA/PTI does not have autonomous
revenues.<br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; ">No comment</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; ">No comment</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; ">No comment
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; ">.ARPA: It
would be relevant at this point to recall that the question of the
.INT TLD shall be referred to the GAC for advice.</p><p align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>______________<br><br><br><br></p></li></ol></p></div><div></div></body></html>